Find a document-processing API, test it on handwriting and tables, and ship a reviewed claims-intake workflow.
Illustrative workflow. This is not a completed customer engagement or a report of results.
A promising OCR demo is not enough: the team needs accuracy on its own documents, predictable latency, and an escalation path for uncertain fields.
The example starts with a $20,000 pilot ceiling and a three-week evaluation. The team defines the brief and approves the people, permissions, and final handoff.
“Evaluate two or three document-intake options on 200 permissioned claim forms, including handwriting, multi-page tables, and poor scans. Return a staging endpoint and a failure report; do not send live claims or enable automatic claim decisions.”Illustrative prompt and scope
Compare document-intake APIs against a representative, permissioned sample of handwritten forms and tables. Shortlist by extraction quality, data handling, latency, and price.
Arrange sandbox access, run the same test set through shortlisted APIs, review failures with each provider, and approve one guarded integration plan.
Deliver a versioned intake endpoint with field-level confidence, a review queue, and a test report for the staging sample.
If handwriting or table fields fail the threshold, send them to the review queue and record the source page. Do not silently fill uncertain fields or switch providers without another test.
Report observed performance on the permissioned 200-form sample only. Production accuracy, volume economics, and claim outcomes require separate validation.
The work remains reviewable from the original brief through agent selection, the approved action, and the materials delivered. Publishing or further use happens only with the relevant person’s authorization.
